The Lakeside View Lounge and Restaurant dispute in Rubavu has crossed the threshold of an ordinary landlord-tenant disagreement.
It now raises uncomfortable questions about suspected corruption, selective enforcement, institutional competence and whether Rwanda’s investment protections work when an investor actually needs them.
At the centre is Eritrean investor Awtseana Welday Abraham, who says he invested approximately $350,000 after signing a 10-year commercial lease with Eugene Sibomana in January 2024 running until 2034; and wholesomely paying 10 years’ rentals in advance for the parking; all permanent construction fixtures and additional ties would belong to Eugene Sibomana after the 10 year tenure.
After receiving the 10 years’ advance, Sibomana sold the property while Abraham’s lease was still being asserted.
What followed has been a disturbing chain of events that demands investigation.
There are now serious suspicions surrounding Sibomana’s misconduct and whether corruption, influence or undisclosed relationships played any role in what happened before and after the sale.
These suspicions are not a judicial finding of wrongdoing. But they cannot simply be brushed aside.
What did Sibomana disclose to the buyers about the existing lease? Why was an unsigned purported termination letter apparently relied upon? Why did he continue receiving rent if the tenancy had supposedly been terminated? Who knew what, and when?
Most importantly; has Sibomana enjoyed protection or influence that an ordinary citizen would not?
That question becomes particularly disturbing when examining what has allegedly happened around Lakeside View.
Police officers have reportedly been deployed on several occasions in front of Lakeside View. On some days, according to accounts available to us by the proprietor; the establishment was instructed to stop entertainment as early as 7pm while its immediate competitor, Saga Bay, was allegedly not subjected to the same restriction.
If accurately documented, such visibly unequal enforcement demands an explanation.
Why would police repeatedly appear at one establishment and not the neighbouring competitor? Under whose instructions? What violations had been established? Were identical rules communicated and enforced against both establishments?
This occurred in plain sight of customers, residents and other businesses. Selective enforcement; or even the reasonable public perception of selective enforcement; is damaging enough to warrant immediate scrutiny by the appropriate authorities.
Then there is Rubavu’s political leadership.
Mayor Prosper Mulindwa has been approached about the matter several times , yet our attempts to obtain meaningful engagement have been met with what we consider an extraordinary lack of responsiveness.
A Mayor cannot comfortably ignore questions while a major investment dispute involving allegations of selective administrative treatment unfolds under his leadership. What and who is the Mayor hiding protecting?
The Private Sector Federation’s intervention has also failed to inspire confidence. By advising Abraham to negotiate a completely new lease with the purchasers while separately taking Sibomana to court, PSF risks appearing to have already accepted one side’s interpretation of a contract whose validity is precisely at the centre of the dispute and then PSF exits Abraham from its WhatsApp forum without proceeding an equitable solution!
PSF should explain its neutrality. This matter now requires attention beyond Rubavu and RDB or other relevant institutions.
RDB, MINICOM and, where allegations warrant it, competent investigative and oversight institutions should examine what has happened; not to substitute themselves for the courts, but to determine whether public authority, influence, corruption or discriminatory enforcement has interfered with a legitimate investment.
The stakes are larger than Abraham. Rwanda hosts a significant Eritrean business community, including investors who have committed substantial capital to businesses and property. Members of that community are watching how their colleague is being treated. So are other domestic and foreign investors.
Rwanda has worked extraordinarily hard to build an international reputation and brand for security, efficient government, low corruption and investor protection. That reputation is an economic asset worth far more than any lakeside property.
We cannot afford to stain it because individual officials are incompetent, compromised or unwilling to confront suspected corruption.
Nor should anyone be declared guilty without due process. That principle protects Sibomana as much as everybody else. But due process does not mean silence. Serious suspicions require serious investigation.
The question is therefore no longer merely who owns the land.
It is whether a foreign investor with a 10-year contract and hundreds of thousands of dollars committed to Rwanda can expect equal treatment from institutions when powerful competing interests emerge.
RDB and MINICOM should intervene before this gets further out of hand. Police leadership should establish whether enforcement around the two neighbouring establishments has been consistent and lawful.
Rubavu District should account for its handling of the dispute. PSF should demonstrate that it has remained impartial. And the allegations and suspicions surrounding Sibomana’s conduct should be independently investigated.
Rwanda’s hard-earned investment reputation is too valuable to sacrifice for anyone.
